[geeks] Re: [rescue] It's official, the U.S. is screwed for 4 more years

[doctor obnox son of a bitch]

Phil Stracchino spoke in riddles, like the night...

> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:43:25AM -0500, velociraptor wrote:
> > Morals seem clear cut and black and white, but when you put it in
> > context, I think it's never simplistic.  For instance, I doubt that
> > anyone would argue that killing is "morally" acceptable.  But when you
> > frame the discussion in the context of say, chasing down terrorists in
> > another sovereign nation, the ground becomes a little less clear-cut.
> 
> I think it's context-dependent, as your terrorism example points out.  I
> have absolutely no problem with the idea of killing someone who's
> attempting to kill me or one of my family, say, or burn my house down,
> or who plans to conquer my country and enslave the population.
> 


And do people have a right to kill YOU, if you're the one doing the killing,
nurning, conquering or enslaving?

> 
> For example:  The Old Testament, commonly regarded as the more barbaric
> and bloody part of the Bible, says (or is almost universally
> mistranslated as saying) "Thou shalt not kill."  But it also says, "Thou
> shalt not suffer a well-poisoner to live" ('witch' is a mistranslation),
> and "If a man comes to kill you, then rise up and kill him."
> 


"An eye for an eye" was actually more humane than the policy which preceded it,
namely "Kill the men, raze the village, rape the women, sell the children for
an eye"

-- 
"An official at the Moroccan Embassy could    ........Eric J. Gustafson
      not confirm the presence of             .........................
 monkeys in the coalition of the willing."    .........drobnox at visi.com